Slashdot Mirror
Legal Analysis of Oracle v. Google
snydeq writes "InfoWorld's Martin Heller provides an in-depth analysis of Oracle's legal argument against Google, a suit that includes seven alleged counts of software process patent infringement and one count of copyright infringement. 'Oracle's desired relief is drastic: not just permanent injunctions, but destruction of all copies that violate copyright (thus, wiping all Android devices), plus triple damages and legal costs. Also, it demands a jury trial,' Heller writes, and while this amounts mainly to saber-rattling, the Supreme Court's recent Bilski ruling did not completely invalidate software process patents despite their shaky ground due to prior art."
right here http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100815110101756
http://www.groklaw.net/article.php?story=20100815110101756
Just read the first few paragraphs of this and it's 2:30 here... time for bed. But I got as far as what eerily described Sun's suit against Microsoft so long ago.
Sun sued Microsoft successfully for their embrace and extend of Java. They claimed it damaged the Java dream of single binaries that run everywhere. Most of us on slashdot agree with that notion as a Microsoft version of Java would make Sun's Java appear broken due to their huge distribution model.
Now we have Sun (Oracle America) making claims against Google. Not that they are violating a license or agreement, but in spirit may contain the same basic drives as described in the Groklaw article. "New-Sun" is, perhaps, trying to do what "Sun" did before -- successfully take down a giant a step or two. After all, what were the end results of Sun v. Microsoft?
There's some confusion out there about how Google would be in a better position from a patent point of view if it had used existing Java code under the GPL (OpenJDK, phoneME). The Android ecosystem as a whole would have had other benefits (such as making it much harder for the makers of Android-based phones to keep important parts of their source code closed) but it wouldn't really help as far as Oracle's patent infringement allegations are concerned.
The GPLv2 (under which OpenJDK and large parts of phoneME are available) does not contain an explicit patent grant. Only an implicit one. As a result, any fork (derived/modified version) is probably not covered.
The InfoWorld article that this Slashdot story refers to talks a lot about forking as a possible strategy -- especially toward the end, where MySQL is also mentioned. I was very much involved with the debate over whether Oracle should get to acquire MySQL (together with Monty, MySQL's original author/founder, I opposed the deal). In that context, it was also a subject of debate whether MySQL forks would be safe from Oracle patent threats in the future. Eben Moglen, who was basically part of Oracle's legal team and had botched the patent aspect of GPLv2 (thus tried to fix the problem with GPLv3), argued that GPLv2 would take care of those forks. However, the European Commission, which (unlike Moglen) is impartial and has vast legal resources, concluded that the implicit patent grant does not -- at least not reliably, but probably not at all -- protect forks.
If you're interested in more detail on the question of whether Google would be or would have been better off with GPLv2, here's a link to the related part of a blog posting of mine. It discusses that question and right thereafter (or you can go there directly) explains that my work related to Oracle's acquisition of MySQL was not an effort to change MySQL's license away from the GPL to something else. I have meanwhile published documents from the process that serve as conclusive evidence that I argued vehemently against -- not for -- a license change. Still, the GPLv2's limitation concerning patent claims against forks is a fact.
There's a fundamental error in the InfoWorld analysis referenced above:
Oracle simply asks for absolutely standard remedies in this situation. There's nothing evil about it, and it cannot be reasonably interpreted as a strategy to destroy open source as a whole or anything like that.
I'm saying this even though I opposed Oracle's acquisition of Sun. I just want to point out that if a case like this goes to court, the plaintiff will always ask for those kinds of remedies. There's nothing unusual about it. In fact, asking for less would be unusual and would probably confuse the judges as to what Oracle actually wants.
Intellectual property rights are exclusive rights. That's the way the law has designed them -- it's not a matter of Oracle being evil. Those IPRs entitle a right holder to enforce exclusivity. That necessarily means to ask for an injunction, and under such circumstances as the ones of this case (with copyright in play), also the destruction of infringing material.
The way to prevent that scenario from materializing is a license agreement between Oracle and Google. So it's up to the two parties to sit down and negotiate, and I believe we as a community should now expect both of them to be constructive. The court can't impose a license agreement on the two of them. If the court has to rule, it will -- if Oracle is right -- have to enforce exclusivity. That's sort of binary, whereas a license agreement would offer much more flexibility.
It's regrettable that they couldn't work this out before the matter was taken to court. But it's not too late until there is a final court ruling.
Much more in-depth: http://blog.headius.com/2010/08/my-thoughts-on-oracle-v-google.html Especially the second part, where he analyzes each patent's claims.
Karma: none (due to not believing in reincarnation)
The patents are so broad and ill defined that if they uphold there are not many processes that do not violate them.
I read one at random and it was about memory-requirement analysis of bytecode class-files. So no, not really.
Perhaps you meant to say "software patents are evil"?